Central Information Commission
Mr.M Kannan vs Ministry Of Communications And ... on 28 September, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2011/001880
Appellant : M Kannan
Respondent : Department of Posts, Chennai
Date of hearing : 28.9.2011
Date of decision : 28.9.2011
FACTS
Heard today dated 28.9.2011. Appellant present. However, nobody has appeared for the department. The appellant is heard and the records perused.
2. It is the appellant's say that his wife Ms. Saroja is a Postal Assistant in the Department. A false criminal case was instituted against her and some others which was tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, and vide order dated 11.2.2010, the said Court has acquitted his wife and other co- accused.
3. In this context, vide RTI Application dated 7.12.2010, he had sought the following information from the CPIO:-
(i) copy of the complaint purported to have been lodged with the police against Shri Murugan by the Postal Department;
(ii) copy of the enquiry report purported to have been conducted by ASP, Tambaram;
(iii) whether, ASP Tambaram handed over 30 documents or 14 documents to the Investigating Officer of Pallavaram Police Station during the course of investigation; and
(iv) whether the ASP has sought permission of SSPOs, Tambaram before handing over certain documents to the Investigating Officer etc.
4. Both CPIO and AA refused to provide any information to the appellant u/s 8 (1) (j) and (h) of the RTI Act. However, during the hearing, the appellant produces a copy of the order dated 11.2.2010, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, which is in Tamil language. Relevant portions, of the said order are read and explained to me by Shri Paul, an officer of CIC. Shri Paul explains that as per this order, Ms. S. Saroja (wife of the appellant) and other accused have been acquitted from the charges under sections 420, 409, 467 and 471 of IPC. Thus, the position that emerges is that the trial of the case is over and the appellant's wife and others have been acquitted in this case.
5. In view of this, the view taken by the CPIO and AA that information is barred from disclosure under clauses (h) & (j) of section 8 (1) cannot be sustained in law. It needs to be underlined that information can be refused when the case is under investigation or under-trial. As noted above, the trial is over and the appellant's wife and other co-accused have been acquitted. Hence, clauses (h) & (j) of section 8 (1) are no more applicable in the matter in hand.
6. In view of the above, the orders of the CPIO and AA are set aside and the CPIO is hereby directed to disclose the requested information to Ms. Saroja in 04 weeks time. This information need not to be disclosed to the appellant as he is a third party.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Das) Deputy Registrar Address of parties :-
1. The Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices & CPIO Department of Posts, Tambaram Division, Tambaram-600045
2. The Director Postal Services & AA Department of Posts, O/o PMG, Chennai City Region, Chennai-600002
3. Shri M. Kannan 58 Perumal Street, IV Cross Street, Old Pallavaram, Chennai- 600117